I think we are all agreed about St Peter the Apostle. But there are other complicating issues.

I don't consider Roman Catholicism graceless, and am constantly inspired by many of the Roman Catholics I meet and read about.

But there are issues.

How long would it take a council to sort them out? About twice as long as it would take to sort out the EO/OO issues. Which should take about a week. Say a month.

That's if all sides are willing to hear what the other is saying.

Papal InfallibilityUniversal Jurisdiction

are problematic.

The FilioqueAssumption of the BVMLater RC saintsLater RC councils

perhaps less so.

Nothing is unsurmountable, following St Cyril's example, if the substance of the faith is the same and if there is a willingness to unite in truth and with love.

There is no excuse for continued division. There are reasons though. And a requirement that we try to understand the others point of view. Much of my effort is directed towards the EO/OO problem but I am also interested in the dialogue with the Roman Catholic Church and my own communion has been engaged in such a dialogue with commitment and integrity.

[I don't get it. Disobedience to Jesus' prayer for unity recorded in John 17 over what?

Dan Lauffer]

The question is unity based on WHAT not OVER WHAT!

Scripture demands we be of one mind [I Corinthians 1:10] and share the exact same faith [Ephesians 4:46;John 10:16; 2 Peter 1:20].

There is no wheeling and dealing where we can believe anything we want as long as we accept a certain earthly bishop as Vicar of Christ' or agree to label any doctrine or dogma we don't entirely agree on as 'theologumenia' or just an 'eastern' or 'western' expression of the same thing.

Buzz words are nice but they are not what unity will or should be based on.

Orthodoc

Logged

Oh Lord, Save thy people and bless thine inheritance.Grant victory to the Orthodox Christians over their adversaries.And by virtue of thy Cross preserve thy habitation.

Bookmark the site and specifically save this text if you wish. It changes daily.

I don't get it. Disobedience to Jesus' prayer for unity recorded in John 17 over what?

Dan Lauffer

Dan,

I guess I don't get it. Any perusal of the Orthodox Fathers, both before and after the schism with the West, testify of the Church's regard for Peter as the Coryphaeus of the Apostles and the Rock. I cannot see how this high regard for Peter should lead me, however, to accept the notion that:

The Roman Catholic Pope has supreme and immediate jurisdiction over all the Church and that his sentence can be judged by no one.The same is endowed with a charisma of infallibility when he speaks ex cathedra on faith and morals.The same is the only successor of Peter and not also Antioch and Alexandria (through Mark)The Immaculate Conception is a dogma that must be believed or else we are deemed "shipwrecked" in faithThe Holy Spirit derives Hypostasis from both the Father and the Son.The superabundant merits of the saints can be imputed by the Roman Catholic Pope--or an ordinary authorized by him (from a "treasury of merit") to those who say certain prayers (called "ejaculations" in traditionalist Roman Catholic parlance) in the reduction of canonical penance (a.k.a "indulgences").

Mind you, these are dogmas according to Florence, Trent and Vatican I. We should all desire and work for unity, but unity can only be "real" unity when it is grounded in Truth--for it is Truth WHO (John 14:6) sanctifies. For the very word of Jesus in John 17:

"Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth." (John 17:17)

We can certainly try to gain a better understanding of each other, and eliminate straw men. But, the sharing of the Eucharistic Cup is a manifestation of One Lord, One Faith, One Church, One Mind, One Confession, One Baptism--and we must not do this unless it's really so.

I always try to be obedient to the web administrators. What quotes are you referring to?

Dan Lauffer

Sorry I wasn't more specific; the texts from the page you were referring to for the feast of St Peter's chains.. Also do you have the thread on forums.catholic-convert.com available? If so could you post the link to the page of quotations from the early church?

What I am seeking is a discussion of specific quotes because often times both sides get caught up in vagueness (ie. RC: "the early church supported the papacy." EO: "no it didn't.").

[There are plenty Orthodox who seem to have just borrowed anti-papal arguments directly from the Protestants. The texts in question show quite clearly that St Peter can be called the Rock.]

May we remind you that we Orthodox Catholics were speaking against the Roman Catholic interpretation of Peter and the 'Rock' centuries before the birth of the reformation! Which makes your comment just plain silly!

Orthodoc

Logged

Oh Lord, Save thy people and bless thine inheritance.Grant victory to the Orthodox Christians over their adversaries.And by virtue of thy Cross preserve thy habitation.

Orthodoc: May we remind you that we Orthodox Catholics were speaking against the Roman Catholic interpretation of Peter and the 'Rock' centuries before the birth of the reformation! Which makes your comment just plain silly!

Orthodoc

I don't understand the quote above.

Do you mean to say that St. Peter is not at least in some sense the Rock of Matthew 16:18?

Please explain.

That "centuries before the birth of the reformation" part makes us sound like Proto-Protestants! Shudder!

I have no desire to reopen the same old Peter/Rock discussion. We all know the drill: all the same tired old arguments get dusted off and paraded about.

I am just wondering what you meant by what you wrote above.

Besides, this quote -

Quote

Michael Rahoza: There are plenty Orthodox who seem to have just borrowed anti-papal arguments directly from the Protestants. The texts in question show quite clearly that St Peter can be called the Rock.

- is right on the money.

« Last Edit: January 16, 2004, 12:53:59 AM by Linus7 »

Logged

The first condition of salvation is to keep the norm of the true faith and in no way to deviate from the established doctrine of the Fathers.- Pope St. Hormisdas

From my reading of the Church Fathers it seems that some called Peter the Rock, others his faith, and still others both.

Grammatically Jesus is calling Peter the Rock but it is in the context of his right profession (obviously if he were a heretic he would not be Rock). The two are not in opposition.

I think that we can deny the Frankish papacy and its later developments without being afraid to acknowledge the texts that do give honor to Rome based on its keeping of the right faith. Since Rome no longer keeps the right faith, we no longer honor Rome's former primacy, plain and simple.

From my reading of the Church Fathers it seems that some called Peter the Rock, others his faith, and still others both.

Grammatically Jesus is calling Peter the Rock but it is in the context of his right profession (obviously if he were a heretic he would not be Rock). The two are not in opposition.

I think that we can deny the Frankish papacy and its later developments without being afraid to acknowledge the texts that do give honor to Rome based on its keeping of the right faith. Since Rome no longer keeps the right faith, we no longer honor Rome's former primacy, plain and simple.

anastasios

Well said.

Logged

The first condition of salvation is to keep the norm of the true faith and in no way to deviate from the established doctrine of the Fathers.- Pope St. Hormisdas

What did some of the pre-schism early church fathers have to say about 'Peter and the ROCK' -

Cyprian, unwilling to grant even a simple primacy to the Bishop of Rome, considers that "the whole body of bishops is addressedin Peter." St. Cyprian rightly concludes that the "Rock is the unity of faith, not the person of Peter." (De Catholicae Ecclesiae Unitate,cap. 4-5)

"I believe that by the Rock you must understand the unshaken faith of the apostles." (St. Hilary, 2nd Book on the Trinity)

Of all the Fathers who interpret these passages in the Gospels (Matthew 16:18, et. al.) NOT A SINGLE ONE OF THEM applies thesepassages to the Roman bishops as Peter's successor. How many Fathers had busied themselves with these texts, yet not one of them whosecommentaries we possess, Origen, Chrysostom, Hilary, Augustine, Theodoric... has dropped the faintest hint that the primacy of Peter is the consequence of the commission andpromise to Peter. Not one of them has explained the Rock or foundation on which Christ will build His Church as the office given to Peter to be transmitted to his successors, butthey understood by it either Christ Himself, or Peter's confession of faith in Christ, often both together. Or else they thought Peter was the foundation equally with the other apostles,the twelve being together the foundation stones of the Church." (Ignaz von Dollinger, The Papacy and the Council, p. 91)

"This one (Peter) is called a rock in order that on his FAITH (Rock) he may receive the foundations of the Church." - St. Gregory Nazianzen, 26th Discourse

"The Rock on which Christ will build His Church means the faith of confession." - St. John Chrysostom, 53rd Homily on St. Matthew

"The Rock (petra) is the blessed and only rock of the faith confessed by the mouth of Peter. It is on this Rock of the confession of faith that the Church is built." - St. Hilary of Poitiers, 2nd book on the Trinity

Hilary wrote the first lengthy study of the doctrine of the Church in Latin. Proclaimed a "Doctor of the Church" by the Roman See in 1851, he is called the Athanasius of theWestern Church.

Cyril of Alexandria

Upon St. John, Book JJ, Chap. XII

'"The word "Rock" has only a denominative value-it signifies nothing but the steadfast and firm faith of the apostles."

In his Letter to Nestorius, St. Cyril says:

"Peter and John were equal in dignity and honor. Christ is the foundation of all -the unshakeable Rock upon which we are all built as a spiritual edifice."

"Christ is the Rock Who granted to His apostles that they should be called rocks. God has founded His Church on this Rock, and it is from this Rock that Peter has been named." - St. Jerome, 6th book on Matthew

"Faith is the foundation of the Church, for it was not of the person but the faith of St. Peter of which it was said, 'the gates of hell shall not prevail'; certainly it is the confession of faith which has vanquished the powers of hell."

"Jesus Christ is the Rock. He did not deny the grace of His name... to Peter because he borrowed from the Rock the constancy and solidity of his faith- thy Rock is thy faith, and faith is the foundation of the Church. If thou art a Rock, thou shalt be in the Church, for the Church is built upon the Rock... (the profession of faith in Christ Jesus)." - St. Ambrose: The Incarnation

(Note: St. Ambrose often spoke disparagingly of the Bishop of Rome as usurping the legitimate rights of other bishops in the Church. Cf. On the Incarnation, On St. Luke, andOn the 69th Psalm.)

St. Augustine, one of the most renowned theologians of the Western Church, claimed by the Roman See as "Father and Doctor", says:

"In one place I said... that the Church had been built on Peter as the Rock... but in fact it was not said to Peter, "Thou art the Rock," but rather "Thou art Peter." The Rock wasJesus Christ, Peter having confessed Him as all the Church confesses Him, He was then called Peter, "the Rock"... (ed, for his faith) ...Between these two sentiments let the readerchoose the most probable." (St. Augustine, Retractions - 13th Sermon; Contra Julianum 1:13)

St. Augustine also adds: "Peter had not a primacy over the apostles, but among the apostles, and Christ said to them "I will build upon Myself, I will not be built upon thee."(ibid.)

To Augustine, this made Peter somewhat less than an infallible teacher, without his fellow bishops and all the faithful by his side. It is this statement by Augustine which PopeHadrian VI (1522-25) had in mind when he declared:

"A Pope may err alone, not only in his personal, but official capacity."

In still another letter Augustine quotes Cyprian, with whom he is in full agreement:

"For neither did Peter whom the Lord chose... when Paul afterwards disputed with him... claim or assume anything and arrogantly to himself, so as to say that he held a primacyand should rather be obeyed by newcomers..."

Finally, Augustine concludes, near the end of his earthly life, with these words on the "Rock of the Church":

"Christ said to Peter... I will build thee upon Myself, I will not be built upon thee. Those who wished to be built among men said, 'I am of Paul, I am of Apollos, I am ofCephas' - however, those who did not wish to be built upon Peter but upon the Rock say, I am of Jesus Christ." (Retractions, 13th Sermon)

Orthodoc

Logged

Oh Lord, Save thy people and bless thine inheritance.Grant victory to the Orthodox Christians over their adversaries.And by virtue of thy Cross preserve thy habitation.

I think Orthodoc has presented the majority view among Orthodox today whether Peter can be called the rock and Anastasios' more moderating view represents a minority position. Not that I agree with Anastasios' belief that Rome does not have the right faith, however.

That is why I said that many Orthodox just seem to borrow arguments from Protestantism on the papacy.

The texts from the Menaion for the Feast today (The Veneration of St Peter's Chains) and those for the Feasts of Sts Peter & Paul and the Synaxis of the Twelve Apostles (June 29 & 30) clearly show that the term "rock" can be applied to St Peter.

Of all the Fathers who interpret these passages in the Gospels (Matthew 16:18, et. al.) NOT A SINGLE ONE OF THEM applies thesepassages to the Roman bishops as Peter's successor. How many Fathers had busied themselves with these texts, yet not one of them whosecommentaries we possess, Origen, Chrysostom, Hilary, Augustine, Theodoric... has dropped the faintest hint that the primacy of Peter is the consequence of the commission andpromise to Peter. Not one of them has explained the Rock or foundation on which Christ will build His Church as the office given to Peter to be transmitted to his successors, butthey understood by it either Christ Himself, or Peter's confession of faith in Christ, often both together. Or else they thought Peter was the foundation equally with the other apostles,the twelve being together the foundation stones of the Church." (Ignaz von Dollinger, The Papacy and the Council, p. 91)

I think Orthodoc has presented the majority view among Orthodox today whether Peter can be called the rock and Anastasios' more moderating view represents a minority position.

This is certainly questionable. It's difficult to overlook the great number of Byzantine Fathers both prior to and after the schism who clearly acknowledge Peter as the Rock, within the context of his confession of course, without which his honour as the Rock would be invalid. Although we see a very select few of the early Fathers denying the personal interpretation, I don't see how in light of the gradual development that occurred in interpreting Matt 16:18 and acceptance of the personal interpretation we should still be pitting the one interpretation against the other. You'll find the most prominent Orthodox scholars in consonance here.

This subject has been exhaustively dealt with on another thread in the Orthodox-RC forum (see 'Thou Art Peter') so i feel rather reluctant to participate in this one. One thing i think should be emphasized is this: that the Apostle Peter enjoyed a special primacy is a fact clearly established by the witness of the Fathers, and that the Orthodox Pope of Rome was regarded as his successor is also firmly testified to. How this can be equated with infallibility, universal jurisdiction, the power to act without the consent of the Church, and even the temporal powers of the papacy which the above facts were used to justify, i find totally unjustified.

We certainly should not try to read the events of the first millennium like they were occuring today. This works both ways, however. The primacy the pope enjoyed was much more than just a primacy of honor. For example, Pope St Leo spoke of the Archbishop of Constantinople holding his See: "by my gracious favour." Pope St Agapetus deposed Patriarch Anthimus of Constantinople. (Fr John Meyendorff erroneously says that Anthimus resigned.)

Glad to hear there are more Orthodox who are willing to admit that St Peter was referred to as "the rock." And thanks for the welcome!

The primacy the pope enjoyed was much more than just a primacy of honor.

Sure; I disagree if by "primacy of honour" we mean simply an honourific status without implying any real moral authority. We part ways when that primacy is mutated into a legalistic concept divorced from the spirit of service as outlined by the Gospel. The Pope of Rome certainly was the bishop with the highest authority in the Church and had a right of abrogation, but such authority was circumscribed by the Canons, which never ceded to him a "universal jurisdiction" (unless we take forged documents to be authoritative in our argument, such as the spurious Arabic Canons of Nicea) nor allocated to his decisions the finality which was reserved only to the Council. Augustine's testimony comes to mind here:

"Supposing those bishops who judged at Rome were not good judges, there remained still a plenerary Council of the universal Church where the cause could be sifted with the judges themselves, so that if they were convicted of having judged wrongly their sentence could be annulled." (Ep. 43.)

Pope Hormisdas' formula was signed by John, Patriarch of Constantinople who added the following statement recalling the 28th Canon of Chalcedon: "I hold the most holy Church of the old and the new Rome to be one. I define the see of the Apostle Peter and this of the imperial city to be one see." (Meyendorff, Imperial Unity and Christian Divisions, pg. 214.) The autonomy of each local church was fiercely defended from any unlawful intrusions by the Popes both in the East and West. I cite two Byzantine scholars:

Francis Dvornik:

"But their fear of compromising the autonomy of their churches prevented the Orientals from accepting the claims that were made by certainPopes, especially Gelasius, Symmacus and Nicholas I, the claim to direct and immediate jurisdiction over the whole Church, including the East." (Dvornik, Byzantium and the Roman Primacy, p. 165.)

Sir Steven Runciman:

"The Emperors considered the Pope to be their subject as well as the Patriarch; and the Pope was more important because he was physically less easy to control and politically more useful owing to the influence that he commanded in Italy. Thus if the Pope could only be placated by humiliating the Patriarch to recognize papal superiority, and was himself anxious to show deference to the Pope's office....Thus if some eleven Patriarchs of Constantinople admitted the superiority of the Pope, they made the admission at the Emperor's bidding, and their successors felt themselves at liberty to consider them wrong in doing so." (Runciman, The Eastern Schism, pp.17-18.)

From my reading of the Church Fathers it seems that some called Peter the Rock, others his faith, and still others both.

Grammatically Jesus is calling Peter the Rock but it is in the context of his right profession (obviously if he were a heretic he would not be Rock). The two are not in opposition.

I think that we can deny the Frankish papacy and its later developments without being afraid to acknowledge the texts that do give honor to Rome based on its keeping of the right faith. Since Rome no longer keeps the right faith, we no longer honor Rome's former primacy, plain and simple.

1) The procession of the All-Holy Spirit (in the unilaterally revised Western Creed ) 2) Beatific Vision of the divine Essence as an intentional unity achieved through an intellectual vision of God 3) Reality not energetic; Grace not the uncreated Energies of Christ's Life for the Latins, whose Sanctifying Grace is a created habitus non-operativus of the soul 4) Failure to distinguish uncreated Energies of God from His from divine Essence5) Inherited guilt 6) Death as a penalty for sinnning7) Immortality of the soul by nature.8- Non-ontological, juridical-satisfaction soteriology*9) Universal papal jurisdiction10) Papal infallibility 11) Supererogatory merits transferable by papal indulgences to living and dead Christians12) Consecration [in the Tridentine Rite]of the Eucharist other than by invoking the Holy Spirit

13) Analogia entis, as currently conceptualized14) The Creator of the cosmos is a "Word"15) Baptism normally without trine immersion16) "Indelible character" of "sacraments" (but "sacramentals" are not Mysteries)17) No divorce under any conditions (a marriage cannot die unless a spouse dies!)18) Monastic and lay vocations different in kind--not gradient, as St. Seraphim of Sarov said19) Eastern Uniates

20) The Immaculate Conception (the real problem is inherited sin)21) Transubstantiation22) Communion in one kind [no longer a rule]23) Use of unleavened bread at the m.h. Eucharist24) Sabbath (Saturday) fasting--other than the day before Great Pascha25) Allowing Pascha to precede the Jewish Passover26) Statues ("graven images") 27) Assumption of the all-holy Theotokos28) Celibacy of parish priests (with exceptions for Uniates and converted clergy)29) Last rites: Unction and Viaticum

Looks to me as if your communion is the one that has morphed into something else

Demetri

Logged

"Religion is a neurobiological illness and Orthodoxy is its cure." - Fr. John S. Romanides

Perhaps you could explain some of these differences to me. I will list (with commentary) the ones I am unclear on.

2) Beatific Vision of the divine Essence as an intentional unity achieved through an intellectual vision of God Is this what the RCC actually teaches, that we will behold God's Essence?3) Reality not energetic; Grace not the uncreated Energies of Christ's Life for the Latins, whose Sanctifying Grace is a created habitus non-operativus of the soul This seems to assume that Palamism is Orthodox dogma. Is that so? Personally, I don't try to define grace either way; I just accept it.4) Failure to distinguish uncreated Energies of God from His from divine Essence Again, this assumes that Palamism is Orthodox dogma and that departure from it is heretical. Is that so?5) Inherited guilt According to the CCC (I forget the entry #), the RCC does not really believe in inherited guilt.6) Death as a penalty for sinnning It's not?7) Immortality of the soul by nature. Has that issue been dogmatically decided one way or the other? Is it wrong to believe that the soul is by nature immortal?13) Analogia entis, as currently conceptualized Please explain.14) The Creator of the cosmos is a "Word" Please explain.16) "Indelible character" of "sacraments" (but "sacramentals" are not Mysteries) Please explain.18) Monastic and lay vocations different in kind--not gradient, as St. Seraphim of Sarov said Please explain.23) Use of unleavened bread at the m.h. Eucharist Please explain why it is crucial that only leavened bread be used.24) Sabbath (Saturday) fasting--other than the day before Great Pascha Please explain why this is not a trivial issue.25) Allowing Pascha to precede the Jewish Passover Why does that matter?26) Statues ("graven images")I don't like 'em much, but how are statues worse than icons?27) Assumption of the all-holy Theotokos How do we differ on this?28) Celibacy of parish priests (with exceptions for Uniates and converted clergy) Isn't that a matter of discipline? We Orthodox require bishops to be celibate even though there were married bishops in the early Church.29) Last rites: Unction and Viaticum Explain please.

Sorry for my apparent ignorance.

Your explanations will be appreciated.

Logged

The first condition of salvation is to keep the norm of the true faith and in no way to deviate from the established doctrine of the Fathers.- Pope St. Hormisdas

Linus7, my friend, no apologies are called for. And I do not want to be dismissive of your questions. It's taken me over a year of reading afanasiy's site (and I still am doing so) and for me to attempt to paraphrase what he has already done will require about 29 more threads here. Some of these points (only a few) are difficult for me as well ( and some are self-evident) and so I recommend a quick (heh, heh )visit to orlapubs and THEN we can talk some more.

My point is not to denigrate the RCC but to point out that in our sometimes zealous ecumanical spirit the differences between the Church and what the RCC has become get grossed over into a two or three big issue discussion. That is simplistic.

afanasiy's list is in some order denoting degree of importance or difficulty in resolving in his view.

Demetri

Logged

"Religion is a neurobiological illness and Orthodoxy is its cure." - Fr. John S. Romanides

I guess I was a bit put off by the refusal of writers to actually address my question or apparently to actually read the liturgy to which I linked. Assuming that no one who has posted has actually looked at the liturgy I'm posting the Orthodox liturgy which calls Peter "The Rock". Now I will address my question to you all once again. Given that Orthodoxy recognizes that Peter is the Rock what is keeping the two groups from actually holding a truly ecumenical council and ironing this whole issue out?

I should add, I've read all of the pertinent texts over and over again and all of the RC and Orthodox twists put on them which would make one sides interpretation of the Role of the Bishop of Rome either favoring the RC or Orthodox side. I've read them so often that I'd really like to get beyond them to a discussion of this one question: "If both sides agree, and this liturgy seems to indicate that they do, what is holding up serious talks for recommunion?"

Peter, the rock of faith, the fervent intercessor, again lifts us up together for a spiritual feast, setting before us his precious chains as provision for a costly banquet that our infirmities may be healed and our sorrows consoled, and the storm-tossed ships of our life brought to harbor. Come, let us kiss them, and entreat Christ Who glorified him,// saying: By his prayers, O Christ, save our souls! January 16: Veneration of the chains of the holy Apostle Peter

I agree with Subdeacon Peter's post above mine, and would like to add that perhaps there are some, like me, who came to this thread too late, and couldn't read the texts on the site. Thanks, Dan, for providing one of them: are there any others you would like us to see?

Logged

"Do not tempt the Mor thy Mod."

Mor no longer posts on OCNet. He follows threads, posts his responses daily, occasionally starts threads, and responds to private messages when and as he wants. But he really isn't around anymore.

I guess I was a bit put off by the refusal of writers to actually address my question or apparently to actually read the liturgy to which I linked. Assuming that no one who has posted has actually looked at the liturgy I'm posting the Orthodox liturgy which calls Peter "The Rock". Now I will address my question to you all once again. Given that Orthodoxy recognizes that Peter is the Rock what is keeping the two groups from actually holding a truly ecumenical council and ironing this whole issue out?

Well, Dan L, the three previous posters are certainly polite in overlooking your insulting condescension. I however, in my testy dotage, am not so disposed. We have read the liturgy. It correctly places St. Peter as chief AMONG the apostles. What is your point? There is no issue to "iron out" here about Peter's Big Brother role. If you are referring to the role as changed by Peter's successors 800 years later from fraternal guidance to a paternalistic king, then you've got problems. And you've brought nothing new to the table.

Quote

I should add, I've read all of the pertinent texts over and over again and all of the RC and Orthodox twists put on them which would make one sides interpretation of the Role of the Bishop of Rome either favoring the RC or Orthodox side. I've read them so often that I'd really like to get beyond them to a discussion of this one question: "If both sides agree, and this liturgy seems to indicate that they do, what is holding up serious talks for recommunion?"Dan L

If you mean by "serious talks" another council, well, been there-done that. And that was well before Rome took a walk all the way off the Orthodox Catholic map. Hope this clears up your confusion.

Demetri

Logged

"Religion is a neurobiological illness and Orthodoxy is its cure." - Fr. John S. Romanides

I thank you for your comments. I think Demetri protests way too much which usually indicates a guilty conscience. But what do I know. He wrote of a condescending attitude...yeah, right.

Anyway, the liturgical text cited above gives me renewed hope. I had almost come to believe that all of Orthodoxy denied that Peter was the Rock. So many had posted that opinion on this and other fora. I'm glad to have discovered that said opinion by those posters and my belief that they represented an accurate picture of Orthodoxy was completely unfounded.

Since posting this Liturgical hymn I've found other hymns that express Orthodoxy's belief that Peter is the Rock. This gives me hope that someday, whether in my lifetime or not, Orthodoxy and Catholicism will sit down together at Council and work this all out.

1. Can anyone who knows Greek (and I assume there are many in this forum) shed some light on whether the word in Matthew 16:18 would be best translated Stone or Rock? Was the word "Petrus" or "Petra" used in the greek text? 2. Historically, St.Peter did not preach in Rome. St.Paul is the apostle who preached there. He did not mention St.Peter in his Epistle to the Roman, whereas he mentioned every other person. The Catholic church can trace themselves back to St.Paul, an EQUALLY great apostle like St.Peter. But it would be a problem for Rome, because their claim of supremacy will be more baseless than it is now. Why should there be a supremacy of a church over another to begin with? I think the Schism in 451 and 1054 were mainly because of this Roman Supremacy claim, and it is time for Rome to give up this demand if they are really serious in achieving unity with the churches who maintained the orthodox faith.

Peace,Stavro

Logged

In that day there will be an altar to the LORD in the heart of Egypt, and a monument to the LORD at its border. (Isaiah 19:19)

" God forbid I should see the face of Judah or listen to his blasphemy" (Gerontius, Archmanidrite of the monastery of St. Melania)

I couldn't cut and paste the Greek from Bibleworks, but it says 'petra'. And the fact that so many Fathers translate it and comment on it as 'Rock' suggests that there is no doubt about the word, only about its application.

I strongly disagree with point 2. Yes St. Paul preached there and was there first, but there's enough evidence to bolster Peter's presence in Rome to be found in tradition; see Eusebius for a glimpse of Peter's role in the foundation of the church at Rome. Furthermore the fact that Paul never mentions Peter in his epistle is hardly proof that Peter was never in Rome.

We can make a very solid case against Rome's claims of supremacy and infallibility without negating very solid historical evidence.

I think Demetri protests way too much which usually indicates a guilty conscience. But what do I know. He wrote of a condescending attitude...yeah, right.

oooooooo, and now personal insults as well. I'm impressed. And you imply that you can "think" as well...Well, think about this: your "Popa" has stated (commanded?) that you Byzantines return to your historical traditions. How far are you willing to go? Liturgical forms and physical trappings or the whole enchilada?

Quote

Anyway, the liturgical text cited above gives me renewed hope. I had almost come to believe that all of Orthodoxy denied that Peter was the Rock. So many had posted that opinion on this and other fora. I'm glad to have discovered that said opinion by those posters and my belief that they represented an accurate picture of Orthodoxy was completely unfounded.

Since posting this Liturgical hymn I've found other hymns that express Orthodoxy's belief that Peter is the Rock. This gives me hope that someday, whether in my lifetime or not, Orthodoxy and Catholicism will sit down together at Council and work this all out.

It is good that you are learning about the Holy Orthodox Catholic Church of the East. That gives ME renewed hope as well.

Demetri

Logged

"Religion is a neurobiological illness and Orthodoxy is its cure." - Fr. John S. Romanides

Byzantino,maybe I should clarify myself. St.Peter was martyred in Rome , around 67 a.d., and he must have preached there, but for a short while. What I am talking about here is WHO FOUNDED THE CHURCH. I didn't make it clear in my previous post, I am sorry.

The founder of the church is St.Paul, all evidence show that. St.Peter might have preached in Rome, but the claim that he is the founder of the church of Rome is baseless. A Founder of a Church meant to the fathers, the apostle who established the church with its sacrements and who the preached the Gospel there. Both are necessary to be called Founder of a Church.

Do we agree on this?

« Last Edit: January 18, 2004, 04:22:58 AM by Stavro »

Logged

In that day there will be an altar to the LORD in the heart of Egypt, and a monument to the LORD at its border. (Isaiah 19:19)

" God forbid I should see the face of Judah or listen to his blasphemy" (Gerontius, Archmanidrite of the monastery of St. Melania)

Stavro: 1. Can anyone who knows Greek (and I assume there are many in this forum) shed some light on whether the word in Matthew 16:18 would be best translated Stone or Rock? Was the word "Petrus" or "Petra" used in the greek text?

The whole Petrus/Petra argument disappears when one considers that our Lord and His disciples spoke Aramaic.

Jesus named Simon bar Jonah Kepha, which is "rock" in Aramaic (which explains why St. Peter is sometimes called "Cephas" in the New Testament). It was not necessary to take the Aramaic noun kepha and alter it to make it a masculine name the way it was necessary to do so with the feminine Greek noun petra.

If one plugs the Aramaic name given St. Peter by our Lord into Matthew 16:18, it reads like this:

"And I also say to you that you are Kepha, and on this kepha I will build My church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it."

I think that clears things up a bit.

« Last Edit: January 17, 2004, 10:23:55 PM by Linus7 »

Logged

The first condition of salvation is to keep the norm of the true faith and in no way to deviate from the established doctrine of the Fathers.- Pope St. Hormisdas